Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

A. HISTORICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

B. INTERPRETIVE GOAL:

The primary interpretive goal is to show, through focusing on Henry Wetherburn and his family, how the tavern grew with the town and serviced the community by providing information and a meeting place for business, socializing, politicking, and amusements, as well as offering locals and travelers food, drink, lodging, and care for their horses. As the social, intellectual, and economic functions of the town became more complex, tavern services expanded proportionately.

C. RESOURCES:

D. INTERPRETIVE METHODS:

THE TOUR

Visitors will be greeted at the front door of the tavern by a historical interpreter who will then lead them inside. The tour will begin in the Bull Head Room where the interpreter will focus on Mr. Henry Wetherburn as an example of a successful tavernkeeper in Williamsburg--the kind of tavern he operated, the daily operations of the tavern, and how the help from both his family members and his slaves was essential. Also, the interpreter will emphasize the role of taverns in Virginia and especially in Williamsburg--the services and activities offered and the tavern's role as an information and transportation center. Throughout the tour, the interpreter will also encourage visitors to see the property through the eyes of the travelers, slaves and the family members.

After leaving the Bull Head Room, the group will then go into the chamber (currently called Mr. Page's room). Here they will become acquainted with the Wetherburn family. Guests will be introduced to the individual family members, will be told how the family members used this room and the room across the hall and about the work each of them accomplished at the tavern. Visitors will also learn about the multiple marriages that had produced this new family and how typical this was in Virginia.

From the chamber, the historical interpreter will lead the group to the room over the Great Room where they will learn about the variety of lodging and accommodations--private rooms, public lodgings, lodging for slaves traveling with tavern customers; how men of different ranks and stations were treated in the tavern; how 18th-century attitudes toward privacy--or lack of it--differ from ours; and how room service could be provided by slaves for a fee.

In the Middle Room visitors will be introduced to the concept of the "public room." Here a mixed clientele of local and itinerant customers ate, drank, smoked, gambled, and caroused. Here they also discussed politics, business, news, and gossip. (The interpreter will show how all of this helped the tavern to serve as a communications center.) The group will also learn about the seasonal fluctuations of business. In addition, the interpreter will discuss how the room and its activities 12 related to the outbuildings and to the blacks who lived and worked there.

From the Middle Room, the group will go into the Great Room. Here the interpreter will discuss the history of this room-how Wetherburn took advantage of the growth of the city to add this room; and that this "private room" was truly a multipurpose one in which special events such as balls, special dinners, and lectures would have been held during Publick Times. The visitor will also learn that Wetherburn occasionally sponsored subscription balls, providing music for dancing and refreshments for a fee. The interpreter will also illustrate how these events affected the slaves who worked at the tavern--extra food to be cooked, extra cleaning to be done, guests to be served and guests to be entertained with music.

The historical interpreter will then lead the group into the service yard where they will be introduced to a member of the Black Programs staff. (The historical interpreter will leave the group at this point.) Using first-person, the Black Programs interpreter will lead the group through the kitchen into the laundry. (The laundry will be exhibited as a multipurpose domestic space used for work and leisure time activities.) In the laundry, the character will concentrate on the realities of slavery, how blacks coped with its harsher aspects, how blacks raised families under these circumstances, the differences between urban and rural blacks, and "family" relationships--blacks with blacks, blacks with whites--and how working at a tavern enabled blacks to have greater chances to meet and communicate with other blacks.

After the first-person interpretation is completed, another member of the Black Programs staff will invite the group into the service yard. Using third-person, this interpreter will summarize the major topics the character covered and will continue to discuss how tavern business and the seasonality of work affected Wetherburn's family and slaves. Lastly, the Black Programs interpreter will summarize the entire experience at the tavern.

Budget
Phase I
October, 1986

DEVELOPMENT OF THE STABLES AND KITCHEN

THE STABLE:

• 1.

  Convert the stable into a working stable--i.e., a stable capable of housing livestock and storing 18th-century vehicles, harnesses and equipment associated with travel and accommodations. (See the interpretive plan for the stable, pg. 17.) The complete plan would also include: a new, five-foot high fence along Francis Street; changing the location of the gates, the construction of a lean-to on the north side of the stable; and the fencing of pasture across Francis Street.

  The stable would greatly enhance the interpretation of transportation in the 18th century. Private activities of blacks would also be incorporated at this location. Visitors would learn that the stable was a communication center between rural and urban businesses, homes and quarters.

  N.B. The committee strongly recommends that the present building be adapted from its current use as a garage to that of a working stable. If this is not possible, extra costs may be incurred and the opening date for the stable as an interpretive site may be pushed back 1-2 years.

  COST:
  	1987:	Planning money, approximately $35,000.
  	1988:	Implementation, cost to be determined
  	1988:	Coach and Livestock Interpreters, approximately $30,000 - $35,000.

• 2.

  Archaeological Investigation: Testing to determine if plowing has occurred on the southern portions of Lots 20 and 21, thus determining further excavation strategy. (This investigation would only be necessary if it is determined that the current stable cannot be adapted but must be torn down and then reconstructed.)

  COST:

  $392.00 (See details, page 45)

• 18
• 3. Archaeological Excavation: See details on page 34.

  COST:

  $13,804 to $28,397, depending on the results of the archaeological investigation.

TAVERNKEEPER'S ROOM:

• 1. Convert the present off-duty room into exhibition space. This room will be furnished to reflect its use as the tavernkeeper's room. The off-duty room will be moved to the basement. The tavernkeeper's room will be furnished with antiques already in the collection.
• 2.

  COST: 1987: approximately $12,000; $2000 for planning, $10,000 for the work.

  The work will include: removing all electrical outlets from exposed walls; removing the sink, counter, and refrigerator; whitewashing all walls and the ceiling; cleaning the pine floor; and removing the existing electrical panel and moving it to a better location. The work will also include reinstalling the kitchen in the basement of the tavern.

  ADDITIONAL COST:The cost of the barrier across the door if the barrier across "Mr. Page's Room" cannot be adapted. Approximately $200 - $1,400.

THE KITCHEN:

• 1.

  Renovate the kitchen for cooking. The chimney must to be reworked to ensure proper ventilation for smoke. Reproduction cooking utensils must to be acquired and funding for staffing will be needed.

  COST:	1987:	A. $1,500. Planning money for conversion of the chimney and construction of the built-in dressers.
  		B. $22,000 for the purchase of reproduction cooking utensils for the kitchen.
  		C. $46,355 for a full-time interpretive staff for the working kitchen and materials and supplies.

• 19
• 2.Convert: the upstairs room of the kitchen to represent more typical black living space and add a staircase on the laundry side to meet fire and safety regulations so visitors can tour these areas.

N. B. Information just received from Architectural research indicates that upstairs domestic space can be incorporated better in the plans for reconstructing the James Anderson Kitchen. The upstairs of Wetherburn's kitchen was constructed using modern carpentry techniques. It would be very difficult to disguise the modern carpentry in a realistic fashion.

OTHER:

• 1.Continued refinements of the collections at the tavern.
• 2.Continued research on tenement properties.

The Stable
An Interpretive Plan

Budget Details: The Kitchen

ACQUISITION OF AN ORIENTATION CENTER
October, 1988

The experiment in October and November of 1985 proved that a slide orientation program was an effective way to begin a tour of Wetherburn's Tavern. The visuals helped cover more material in a shorter amount of time than would be possible with a straight verbal introduction to the property.

The development of an orientation center outside of the tavern proper will allow us, to use 20th-century methods, props, and techniques without destroying the purity of the 18th-century tavern experience for our visitors. By having the orientation off-site, the chamber (formerly Mr. Page's Room) would not have to be compromised. This room could be shown as it would have been during Wetherburn's ownership and usage of the property. Also, with a six-minute slide interpretation program off-site, interpreters will be able to prepare visitors for an 18th-century experience on the entire property. It will make interaction techniques and transitions between historical interpreters, character interpreters, and our guests less confusing and more believable.

Previous Archaeological Investigation

The first archaeological excavations on Colonial Lot 20 (designated as Archaeological Area C) were conducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1935. On the northern portion of the lot, foundations for a structure fronting onto Duke of Gloucester Street were located (Campbell 1935). This has been reconstructed as Tarpley's Store (Building 41-A).

There are several photographs of the 1935 excavations, but Figure 1 Frenchman's Map (1781) Figure 2 38 none which show any work on the southern portion of Colonial Lot 20. The only information which could be found in the 1935 archaeological report about this area reads: "The remainder of the lot back to Francis Street was cross trenched but disclosed no further evidence of the buildings shown on the Frenchman's Map, slight indications of modern construction being unearthed at intervals throughout" (Campbell 1935:2).

In a 1946 letter to the resident of Wetherburn's Tavern, A. E. Kendrew states that archaeological excavations were anticipated on the vacant lot on the south side of the Bland-Wetherburn property (Kendrew 1946). Excavation plans were also mentioned in an earlier (1941) memo about the same area (Jones 1941). The southern portion of Colonial Lot 21 is shown as Archaeological Area 9-I (CWF 1932), and it does appear that cross-trenching probably took place there in 1946 or directly thereafter. No maps or reports for Area 9-I have been located, but this is not unusual, since maps and reports did not usually seem to be prepared if no brick foundations walls were encountered during the cross-trenching.

Although Ivor Noel Hume conducted excavations at Wetherburn's Tavern in 1965, his work was confined to the area around and directly south of the Tavern, where he located the remains of a dairy, three smokehouse periods, a laundry, and two kitchens. These are most likely the tavern service structures seen on the Frenchman's Map. Noel Hume's excavations did not locate a structure which he could identify as a stable.

Often fire insurance polices are helpful in determining what structures stood on insured lots, their manufacture materials, their dimensions, and sometimes their spatial organization on the property. Unfortunately, no Mutual Assurance Society records for either of these lots have been located.

With documentary evidence, but no traces of the stable revealed through archaeology, the stable was constructed by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation during 1939. The stable itself (Building 41-C), known at different periods as Tarpley's Stable and Wetherburn's Stable, rests on a shallow brick foundation and measures 38.0' x 24.0'. A 4' thick concrete slab, covering the southerly stall of the stable, was installed in 1976 (Mahone 1976). It has been constructed at the northeast corner of Botetourt and Francis Streets, in the same location as a structure depicted in the Frenchman's Map (Figure 3). Perhaps due to its larger size relative to the other structures depicted on Lot 20, and the lack of map and archaeological evidence for a stable elsewhere, this was thought to be the most accurate location for the stable that was known to have existed on Wetherburn's property.

Jim Waite's architectural report on Wetherburn's Tavern mentions the southern portions of the Wetherburn's property: 39 Figure 3 40

To the rear of the kitchen and other adjacent outbuildings is located a simple four-square kitchen garden, typical of the period, with flanking necessary houses in conventional locations. Small fruit trees and berries have been planted on either side of the kitchen garden and representative field crops occupy a lot adjacent to Botetourt Street. Mr. Wetherburn's estate listed an inventory of livestock, including six horses, four cows, and seventeen sheep. The stable yard and paddock at the rear of the lot have been developed to reflect this activity, and future plans call for the present stable, reconstructed earlier as a four-car garage, to be fully completed and furnished as an exhibition stable. (Waite 1968:22).

Although the 1935 trenching failed to reveal any structural remains on Wetherburn's portion of Block 20, this is not necessarily an accurate conclusion. Prior to 1957, the primary focus of archaeological excavation was to locate buildings for reconstruction. The form of excavation taken, usually the digging of trenches as 45 degree angles to street and property lines, was not successful in locating certain types of structural remains. Buildings with intact or partially intact brick foundations were normally located with no trouble. Structures using more impermanent types of building techniques, such as post-in-the-ground construction, were usually missed. This was demonstrated most recently in the 1985/6 excavations at Shield's Tavern. Two 18th century structures were located in an area which had previously been cross-trenched in the 1950s and declared void of structural remains. One of these buildings was of post construction, while the other was evident only through the presence of a trench for robbed foundation walls (Higgins, personal communication). It is interesting to note that these two buildings were found in an area which had been shown on the Frenchman's Map as containing a structure. Therefore, it is not safe to conclude, on the basis of cross-trenching results, that there is no potential for archaeological remains on lots which have been previously examined.

While prospects appear good for the presence of 18th century structural remains on Colonial Lot 20 based on map and former archaeological coverage, the effects of activities occurring during the 19th and 20th centuries on Colonial Lots 20 and 21 must not be overlooked. There are indications that the rear yard was plowed during the 19th and early 20th centuries (Waite 1968:21). Numerous buildings also stood on these two lots. Photographs taken during the late 1920s show a line of buildings standing on Colonial Lot 21, along the boundary between lots 20 and 21. A 1964 memo shows that there were eleven buildings labeled as "modern" which were to be removed from this area, south of Wetherburn's Tavern (Frank 1964). There were also buildings located along the edge of South 41 Botetourt Street. Photographs taken in 1932 reveal that these buildings were storage sheds or barns of some type, of frame construction and set on wooden and brick piers (Figure 4). These buildings were not shown on the 1921 Sanborn Map; at this point it is not apparent whether they were not standing in 1921, or more likely, if they were not insured against fire damages. It is not known when these buildings were destroyed.

These 19th and 20th century buildings most likely will not have greatly disturbed 18th century archaeological remains on Lots 20 and 21. They all appear to have been set on small piers, which were likely not set more than one foot or more into the ground. Installing these piers would have caused a minimum of ground disturbance. The same holds for the current reconstruction of the stable; it rests on a shallow brick foundation. More damaging to archaeological remains, however, would be the effects of plowing in this area. Although remains of structures would be visible through postholes which cut into the subsoil, less tangible information would be lost, such as the positions of walkways, activity areas, and certain types of dating evidence. If this area is found through testing to have been plowed, it may be more feasible to machine strip the plowzone to reveal those features which cut through subsoil.

Three budgets have been prepared for testing at Wetherburn's Stable. The first budget covers the cost of limited testing to determine if plowing has occurred in the area around the stable. This in turn will determine what excavation strategies are feasible for archaeologically investigating a 50' x 50' area around the stable. Two budgets are given for excavation, one based on machine stripping of a plowzone, and the other based on manual excavation of the same area.

Figure 4

Sample Size and Collection

169 surveys and 90 observations were completed duping the first experiment. 116 surveys and 20 observations were collected during the second experiment. Pouring rain during all five days of the second experiment led to a decrease in visitation as well as in collection of data. Historical interpreters Kim Vahsholtz, Cindy Woodward and W. McLeod Ferguson III conducted the surveys and recorded their observations of visitors during the ten day program and provided us with a very thorough evaluation study. The surveyors were instructed to actively select a balance of male and' female respondents and a wide range of ages.

Pre-Test Tours

No significant changes appeared between the pre-test surveys of October 1984 and those conducted in 1985. The following sections cover only post-test data.

Visitor Make-Up

The major change in this category was that for both experiments there was a large increase in the number of visitors who have visited other 18th century taverns within the last year. In October 1984 only 25% of the visitors had visited other taverns versus 47% and 52% of the visitors in October and November 1985.

Types of People Visitors Expect to Meet in an 18th Century Tavern

As in the 1984 study, members of the upper class, politicians and merchants were the common answers during both experiments. The only significant change was that in experiments 1 and 2 visitors answered slaves (4% in experiment 1 and 8% in experiment 2) which-no one mentioned in the 1984 study.

Services Offered by Tavernkeepers in the 18th Century

Food, lodging, and drink were the popular answers again. A significant change occurred in the responses during the two experiments that did not occur in 1984. Stables, servants quarters, communication center, private rooms, private dining facilities, horse rentals and meeting rooms were mentioned more frequently than in the 1984 study and in some cases mentioned for the first time in 1985.

Differences and Similarities Between 18th-Century Taverns and a 20th-Century "Holiday Inn?"

There were no significant changes here. As in the 1984 study modern conveniences, degree of privacy, and cleanliness were given as major differences and the services of food, drink, and lodging as the major similarities.

Words Used to Describe Slaves in the 18th Century

In this area a significant change appears. In the 1984 study almost half of the visitors used words such as rough, pitiful, terrible, referring to the harsh treatment of slaves. Almost all responses were very negative in terms of their lifestyles and treatment.

During experiment #1, although one-fourth of the visitors gave negative responses, 51% emphasized "hard work, long hours" versus 24% in the 1984 study. 4% of the visitors stated that slaves were "better off here than on the plantation" and 4% of the visitors stated that the slaves were better off than expected. These last two responses did not appear in the 1984 study.

During experiment #2 when the interpreters of black life in the laundry by members of the black programs staff cured, another change in visitor response appeared. 63% mentioned "hard work, long hours," 18% mentioned "better off than on plantations" and 8% mentioned that they were "better off than I expected." What I believe has happened is that beginning in experiment #1 and then increasing in experiment #2 visitors' negative perceptions and images of harsh treatment change. They believe that although the slaves' lives were difficult, it was better off than those who lived under different conditions such as on plantations. If this was a major objective of the interpretation of black life at Wetherburn's, it appears that this was communicated successfully.

Sources and Methods Used to Restore Wetherburn's Tavern

As in the 1984 study, archaeology was stated by a majority of visitors in experiment #2. In experiment #1, ¼ of the visitors mentioned archeology, ¼ stated inventories and ¼ stated written documents with the remaining answers being maps, research, diaries, etc. This change is hard to explain since both groups saw the same orientation program that covered this topic.

An additional change that cured was that visitors mentioned "inventories" (35% in experiment #1, 34% in experiment #2) and "maps" (11% for both experiments) which were not mentioned at all in the 1984 study. In addition, a smaller percentage of visitors mentioned the Frenchman's Map and paint analysis in both experiments. It appears that the orientation program did broaden visitors' understanding of the sources used in restoring the tavern.

Did Visitors Find the Orientation Useful?

In both experiments the majority of visitors found the orientation program useful. In both experiments, 6% did not find the orientation useful. Those who did not like the program stated the slides moved too quickly (4% in experiment 1, 8% in experiment #2) and that they would prefer to have an interpreter give them the information (2% for both experiments).

How Did the Orientation Help to Prepare You?

Most visitors stated that it prepared them for what came next, gave them a sense of life at the tavern and helped them to understand the restoration of the tavern.

Visitors Rating Their Visit to the Tavern on a Scale of 1 to 3

This question was not asked in the 1984 study. 65% of the visitors in both experiments gave it a "5". Only in experiment #2 did the program receive a "3" by 6% of our visitors. These three visitors who rated it a 3 stated they didn't enjoy the slides, more interested in decorative arts, and nothing was said about why the building was painted the way it was.

One Thing That Stood Out in Visitors' Minds About the Lives of the Blacks

This question was not asked in the 1984 study. There are three significant changes that occur here. In experiment #1 visitors gave a greater percentage of statements dealing with their harsh treatment than in experiment #2. Secondly, in experiment #2, 25% versus 9% in experiment #1 stated that the slaves' lives at Wetherburn's were better than the lives of those who lived on plantations. In experiment #2 there was also a significant increase in the number of visitors who stated that slaves' lives were better off than they expected. An additional change is that the answers to this question in experiment #2 describe concepts of ownership, loyalty, and family life that are more sophisticated than the one or two word answers given in experiment #1. The interpretation of black life during experiment #2 appears to have caused visitors to heighten their understanding of the lives of slaves at Wetherburn's.

How We Can Improve the Visitors' Experience

While in 1984 22% suggested we show and tell more about tavern staff and clientele, we received no responses of this type in 1985. Similar to 1984, visitors suggested we serve samples of liquor, although this request did decrease since last year (17% in 1984, 8% and 6% in 1985) and they requested we put less people in each group (12% in 1984, 8% in 1985). In experiment #2, 13% mentioned that the character interpretation was excellent. In experiment #1, 11% requested that we shorten the tour.

What Else Visitors Want to Know

Visitors appear confused about how 18th century prices relate to today's prices. This was stated in 1984 (10%), and in 1985 (14% in experiment #1, 15% in experiment #2). In experiment #2, 6% wanted to know more about the business end of running a tavern and the sources of supplies for a tavern.

Observations

In both experiments the statements made by interpreters that caused laughter and surprise were Wetherburn's hasty second marriage, the linens being reused and the idea of strangers sleeping together. Objects that received the most comment between visitors were the pipes, chamber pots, bar, prints in the middle room and the cupboards on the stair landing. the only change from the 1984 study was that more visitors commented about the pipes and chamber pots in 1985 and fewer visitors commented about the silver in 1985 than in 1984. A large number of visitors (25%) left the tour early on the first day of experiment #1 when the tours were longer than usual. In experiment #2, 20% of the visitors did not see the dependencies due to the fact that it was pouring rain. In experiment #2, there was a significant decrease in observed interactions between visitors and between visitors and interpreters.

Interpretive Objectives Checklist

In all three observation studies there are three interpretive objectives that observers heard only rarely. This is no surprise to the tavern planning committee who knew that due to lack of physical evidence to support these objectives, they would be our weakest ones. The tavern planning committee should consider seeking objects or evidence to support them or eliminating them from the interpretive checklist.

• Sources and Uses of Consumables
• Care and Maintenance of Livestock
• Comparison of Urban/Urban and Urban/Rural Taverns

Conclusion

The most significant changes that occur in this report are the visitors' response to black life and their heightened understanding of the restoration of the tavern. The observed lack of interaction during the "posted" experiment #2 also indicates a significant change. These findings along with the feedback collected from the interpreters who participated in the experiments should be considered when making final recommendations for an interpretive plan for Wetherburn's Tavern.